Assessment of EoI:388



EoI Metadata

Performance of EoI 388 in Andes/Amazon - Percentile by Average Score


Section 1 - Experience & strengths relevant to the proposed Indigenous territory, landscape/seascape (Total Points: 30)

A) Importance of the landscape/seascape/indigenous territory for biodiversity, with additional consideration to climate benefits.
1. Is the proposed territory/landscape/seascape a globally important area for biodiversity?

Scoring:

  • Not significant;

  • Low Significance;

  • Moderate Significance;

  • Medium-high Significance;

  • High Significance;

  • Exceptional Significance

Reviewer A: 2/5 Reviewer B: 3/5

Average: 2.5/5

Evidence A: Esta ubicada en zonas con particular importancia en la Amazonia andina Peruana enfocada en apoyar las ecorregiones: Yungas, Paramos y bosques secos. Cada uno con sus particularidades e importancia ecosistémica y de biodiversidad.

Evidence B:Area of high biodiversity, endemic species, water shed value


2. Is the area important for climate mitigation?

Scoring:

  • >50 t/ha - Low;

  • 50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;

  • >100 t/ha - High

Reviewer A: 1/2 Reviewer B: NA/2

Average: NA/2

Evidence A: De acuerdo a mapa.

Evidence B:Not very clear from location or proposal


B) Geographical focus in an area under IPLC governance.
3. Is the area held and managed by IPLC under community-based governance systems?

Scoring:

  • IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;

  • Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);

  • Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);

  • Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;

  • Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;

  • Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems

Reviewer A: 3/5 Reviewer B: 2/5

Average: 2.5/5

Evidence A: Las comunidades de Bolivar y Bambamarca reconocidas por ley como comunidades campesinas y tienen reconocimiento por el estado. SIn embargo estas instancias tienen limitaciones para la efectiva gobernanza de sus tierras.

Evidence B:includes communal land of the of the communities of Bambamarca and Bolívar whose rights are indicated to be recognized.


4. Does the proposal explain the unique cultural significance of the area to IPLCs?

Scoring:

  • No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;

  • Significance of site(s) vaguely described;

  • Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained

Reviewer A: 1/2 Reviewer B: 2/2

Average: 1.5/2

Evidence A: No dan aspectos particulares.

Evidence B:Indicates some the ways the communities relate to the land including the archeological value.


C) Vulnerability of the proposed IPLCs as well as their lands/waters/natural resources to threats.
5. Is the area vulnerable to threats/current risk of negative impacts to IPLC and biodiversity without action?

Scoring:

  • No evident threats;

  • Low threats;

  • Moderate threats;

  • Medium-high threats;

  • High threats;

  • Requires urgent action

Reviewer A: 2/5 Reviewer B: 2/5

Average: 2/5

Evidence A: Son amenazas comunes a varios espacios y ecosistemas relevantes: caza furtiva, incendios forestales de origen antrópico, deforestación-cambio de uso de suelo. Un aspecto que fuertemente se presenta y es la pobreza extrema en esas zonas. Se mencionan otras amenazas externas pero son potenciales: carretera y minería, además de presión por la situación actual producida por COVID 19.

Evidence B:deforestation as result of cattle ranching and subsistence farming seem to be primary threat.


D) Opportunities for ICI results - including enabling policy conditions, positive government support and presence of successful IPLC-led conservation initiatives that could be scaled up.
6. Are enabling policy conditions in place for IPLC-led conservation in the proposed area?

Scoring:

  • Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);

  • Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;

  • Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);

  • Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance

Reviewer A: 3/3 Reviewer B: 2/3

Average: 2.5/3

Evidence A: A nivel legal la institucionalidad normativa peruana apoya las iniciativas de pueblos indígenas y comunidades locales. Puede tener potencial para tener efectos expansivos en sus resultados.

Evidence B:The law recognizes the rights of IPs and governance of lands, but it is not clear what is the level of implementation


7. Is there active government support for IPLC-led conservation in the proposed country/area?

Scoring:

  • National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;

  • National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;

  • National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;

  • National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation

Reviewer A: 1/3 Reviewer B: 3/3

Average: 2/3

Evidence A: Existen los programas nacionales como Programa de Conservacion de Bosques y para la mitigación del cambio climático el apoyo a comunidades nativas y campesinas en los bosques amazónicos, en bosques secos y altoandinos; y la Ley Forestal y Fauna Silvestre que tiene acciones en la zona de San Martín, pero no hay una descripción directa de una acción de conservación directamente implementada en la zona. El apoyo normativo existe.

Evidence B:Laws exist, some programs are being implemented


8. Are there successful IPLC-led conservation initiatives in the proposed area that provide a foundation for scaling up?

Scoring:

  • No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;

  • Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;

  • Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;

  • Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years

Reviewer A: 1/3 Reviewer B: 2/3

Average: 1.5/3

Evidence A: Se mencionan algunos pero las descripciones no son claras para poder mostrar claramente su impacto.

Evidence B:There seem to be some initiatives such as GEF-Santoyama project and some government supported projects. It is not clear however how much they are IPLC led.


E) Synergies with existing investments.
9. Are there other initiatives (relevant projects) that provide complementary support for IPLC-led conservation in the geography?

Scoring:

  • Few to no complementary projects/investment;

  • Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;

  • Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial

Reviewer A: 1/2 Reviewer B: 1/3

Average: 1/2

Evidence A: Se describen proyectos pequeños

Evidence B:projects seem to be self-financed and small.



Section 1:

Reviewer A Total Score: 15/30
Reviewer B Total Score: 17/30

Average Total Score: 16/30



Performance of EoI 388 in Andes/Amazon - Percentile by Average Score (Section 1)


Section 2 - Quality and ability of the proposed approach and interventions to achieve transformational impact that generate the global environmental benefits (Total Points: 40)

A) Quality of proposed approach and ability to support traditional structures, knowledge and community practices in the delivery of global environmental benefits.
1. Is the proposed approach well aligned with the overall objective of the ICI to: Enhance Indigenous Peoples' and Local Communities' (IPLCs) efforts to steward land, waters and natural resources to deliver global environmental benefits?

Scoring:

  • Weakly aligned;

  • Partially aligned;

  • Well aligned;

  • Exceptionally well aligned

Reviewer A: 1/3 Reviewer B: 1/3

Average: 1/3

Evidence A: Contiene aportes específicos para el desarrollo de las comunidades sin embargo, no se enfoca a un aporte de alcance global.

Evidence B:The initiative focuses on transforming the agricultural practices of indignenous communities to be more conservation oriented; strengthening livelihood opportunities by introducing quinoa and honey production; participatory monitoring of palm and monkeys. While the title says suggests indigenous governance as a tool for sustainable management there is little that is being done in this regard. While these may reduce deforestation I am not sure how much traditional structures, knowledge and community practices are being supported.


2. Does the EoI present a clear and convincing set of activities and results?

Scoring:

  • The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;

  • Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;

  • Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;

  • The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline

Reviewer A: 2/6 Reviewer B: 4/6

Average: 3/6

Evidence A: Me parece una propuesta interesante pero su diseño tiene errores. No es claro la relación entre actividad y resultado. Se presenta un error en que se plantea varias actividades que tienen varios resultados en cada una. Sin embargo hay varios “resultados” descritos muy interesantes y que pueden apoyar para el fortalecimiento de la gobernanza de las zonas.

Evidence B:The logic is that if indigenous peoples shift their agricultural practices, understand the value of the land and are participating in conservation (participatory monitoring) then there will be greater conservation. If the reason why IPs pursue unsustainable practices is because of the market opportunities for livelihoods, it would be good to hear about what opportunities for quinoa and honey exist and how these will be capitalised on.


3. Will the project (objectives and activities) contribute to overcoming identified threats and putting in place necessary enabling opportunities for IPLC-led conservation?

Scoring:

  • Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;

  • Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;

  • Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;

  • The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context

Reviewer A: 1/3 Reviewer B: 2/3

Average: 1.5/3

Evidence A: Estan asociados peo creo que podrían reforzarse en especial ver la relacion entre las actividades para lograr un mayor impacto del proyecto como un todo. Me falta una visión de todas las acciones logrando un objetivo. Puede ser que la forma en la que está escritos el marco de resultados y actividades confunde y no permite entender bien la propuesta. Puede ser revisada.

Evidence B:If the idea is to shift the unsustainable agricultural practices, to more sustainable ones such as pursuing the opportunities for quinoa and honey, clear strategy for capitalising on them is probably necessary . It is not clear whether the proposed activities will necessary result in increased governance capacity.


4. Are the activities achievable within a $500,000 to $2,000,000 USD budget range in a period of 5 years of project execution?

Scoring:

  • Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;

  • Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;

  • Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;

  • Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment

Reviewer A: 1/3 Reviewer B: 2/3

Average: 1.5/3

Evidence A: No es claro para mi cuanto están pidiendo y como lo piensan hacer. Me parece en general que las actividades como planteadas en general si pueden estar dentro del rango pero no me es claro.

Evidence B:it seems to be o


5. Does the EoI include significant and concrete sources of co-financing?

Scoring:

  • None;

  • Small;

  • Moderate;

  • Significant

Reviewer A: 1/3 Reviewer B: 2/3

Average: 1.5/3

Evidence A: Se plantea el capital de trabajo de las comunidades pero creo que es limitado y un cofinanciamiento Municipal de Bambamarca pero a nivel potencial.

Evidence B:Communities seem to have some initial assets for some of the project components and the organization is investing already in technical support to communities and monitoring.


B) Potential of the proposed activities to achieve IPLC-led transformational impact that generate global environmental benefits.
6. Are the estimated Global Environmental Benefits (GEF core indicators) substantial and realistic?

Scoring:

  • Not provided;

  • Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);

  • Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);

  • High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);

  • Very high above 1,000,000 Ha

Reviewer A: 3/5 Reviewer B: 3/5

Average: 3/5

Evidence A: El planteamiento de la mejora de la gestión de las comunidades campesinas está justificado.

Evidence B:NA


7. Are the additional cultural and livelihoods results contributing to project objectives?

Scoring:

  • No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;

  • Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;

  • Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;

  • Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals

Reviewer A: 1/3 Reviewer B: 1/3

Average: 1/3

Evidence A: No hay una directa relación ni una justificación adecuada.

Evidence B:needs to be expanded on.


8. Does the EoI provide a clear and robust vision for long-term sustainability?

Scoring:

  • Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;

  • This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;

  • This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;

  • This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance

Reviewer A: 1/3 Reviewer B: 2/3

Average: 1.5/3

Evidence A: Esta enunciada pero me dificulta analizar el cómo se sería la sostenibilidad planteada.

Evidence B:The two proposed aspects make sense: capacity of communities to impact provincial budgets and investment by the productive associations. The project would have to lay a strong foundation for these.


C) IPLC-led conservation that advances national and global environmental priorities.
9. Does the EoI build on and contribute to national priorities as defined in NBSAPs and/or NDCs?

Scoring:

  • Contributions not provided;

  • The project is weakly related to either national priorities;

  • The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;

  • The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities

Reviewer A: 2/3 Reviewer B: 3/3

Average: 2.5/3

Evidence A: Se mencionan las metas a las cuales se aportarían.

Evidence B:The project seems to be designed to meet several of the objectives under agriculture, forests and biodiversity and activities 3, 5 and 7 of the NDC


D) Demonstrated gender mainstreaming in all activities.
10. Does the EoI provide a clear and robust approach to gender mainstreaming?

Scoring:

  • Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;

  • Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;

  • Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');

  • Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming

Reviewer A: 2/3 Reviewer B: 2/3

Average: 2/3

Evidence A: El diseño tiene un enfoque de trabajar a nivel de familia. Hay que vigilar que dichas acciones no se conviertan en trabajar solamente con los lideres y/o hombres de las familias. Se habla tambien de hacer acciones temporales afirmativas para impulsar la participación de las mujeres para el empoderamiento lo cual está bien pensado, así también tiene un interesante enfoque de trabajo con los hombres. En la justificación tambien aborda algunos elementos de paridad de participación en reuniones. Me parece adecuado para este nivel de desarrollo de la propuesta.

Evidence B:Could be expanded on and made more concrete. Participation of women in the productive aspects are not addressed.


E) Innovation and potential to scale up.
11. Do the proposed activities and results demonstrate innovation and potential for transformative results at scale?

Scoring:

  • None demonstrated;

  • Low demonstrated potential;

  • Moderate demonstrated potential;

  • Medium-high demonstrated potential;

  • High demonstrated potential;

  • Exceptional demonstrated potential

Reviewer A: 1/5 Reviewer B: 2/5

Average: 1.5/5

Evidence A: No identifico aspectos innovadores. Me parece que tiene potencial para desarrollar actividades transformativas a mayor escala y no tanto como están planteandolo a un nivel muy local.

Evidence B:The title of the project “Gobernanza comunitaria como herramienta para la gestión sostenible de los ecosistemas y la preservación de la riqueza cultural” suggests a focus on governance. This would be innovative but the project does not seem to deliver on this in terms of its proposed specific objectives and activities.



Section 2:

Reviewer A Total Score: 16/40
Reviewer B Total Score: 24/40

Average Total Score: 20/40



Performance of EoI 388 in Andes/Amazon - Percentile by Average Score (Section 2)


Section 3 - Qualifications and experience of the Organization (Total Points: 30)

A) Indigenous Peoples or Local Community organization legally recognized under national laws.
1. Is the EoI led by an IPLC organization?

Scoring:

  • IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;

  • Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;

  • IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);

  • Fully IPLC composed and led approach

Reviewer A: NA/6 Reviewer B: NA/6

Average: NA/6

Evidence A: No es claro el rol de liderazgo de las comunidades campesinas. En ciertos momentos el enfoque es de beneficiarios solamente.

Evidence B:IPs seem to be only beneficiaries. AMPA is an NGO that provides services to them. The letters themselves seem to suggest this.


2. Does the lead proponent demonstrate on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work?

Scoring:

  • None demonstrated;

  • Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;

  • Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;

  • Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work

Reviewer A: 2/6 Reviewer B: 4/6

Average: 3/6

Evidence A: Las comunas tienen liderazgo a nivel local pero el lead proponent es una ONG.

Evidence B:has implmented a GEF project with local communities and coordinates a network


C) Proven relevant experience in working with IPLC networks, alliances and organizations/ strength of partnerships on the ground.
3. Does EoI demonstrate that the lead proponent has strong partnerships, particularly with other IPLC organizations, to carry out the work?

Scoring:

  • No partners defined;

  • No IPLC partners identified;

  • IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);

  • IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);

  • Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;

  • Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks

Reviewer A: 2/5 Reviewer B: 2/5

Average: 2/5

Evidence A: Las comunidades son beneficiarias no en un rol de liderazgo o no me queda claro si lo es.

Evidence B:Seems to be IPLC are more beneficiaries.


D) Technical expertise and capacity to address environmental problems, root causes and barriers.
4. Does EoI demonstrate technical capacity of lead proponent and partners to deliver the proposed results?

Scoring:

  • No skills demonstrated;

  • The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;

  • There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;

  • The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;

  • They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;

  • The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.

Reviewer A: 2/5 Reviewer B: 5/5

Average: 3.5/5

Evidence A: AMPA tiene una clara experiencia pero no me queda claro el rol y la capacidad instalada para la ejcución de una inciativa financiada con este fondo.

Evidence B:Seems to have implmented several relevant projects.


E) Project Management capacity.
5. Does the EoI demonstrate project & financial management capacity needed for scale of proposed effort?

Scoring:

  • Very limited (no criteria met);

  • Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);

  • Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);

  • Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance

Reviewer A: 2/6 Reviewer B: 6/6

Average: 4/6

Evidence A: El promedio anual de la ONG es de 440K USD pero no me es claro que puedan manejar los fondos hasta un 1 millón.

Evidence B:Has implemented large project before including GEF project


6. Does lead organization have experience with safeguards and other standards required by GEF?

Scoring:

  • Answered no;

  • Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;

  • Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent

Reviewer A: 1/2 Reviewer B: 2/2

Average: 1.5/2

Evidence A: Dice que si pero no me queda claro mas allá de una experiencia que. se mecniona.

Evidence B:NA



Section 3:

Reviewer A Total Score: 9/30
Reviewer B Total Score: 19/30

Average Total Score: 20/30



Performance of EoI 388 in Andes/Amazon - Percentile by Average Score (Section 3)